I am posting below (with permission) details of the experience of a young person of legal age who attempted to renounce United States citizenship at a US Consulate in Canada.
Readers have weighed in whether the behaviour of the Consular official was appropriate or not.
The FIRST part of this post is the detailed December 19, 2019 personal account of the person, followed by an earlier April 10 2019 second hand summary of the experience.
DECEMBER 19, 2019 DETAILED FIRST-HAND ACCOUNT OF EXPERIENCE OF YOUNG PERSON ATTEMPTING TO RENOUNCE AT US CONSULATE IN CANADA:
“In July 2018, I sent an email request for a renunciation appointment to be scheduled for after my 18th birthday, since I was not yet 18 years old at the time. I needed to wait until my birthday because according to U.S. law, they can deny an application from minors, but they cannot deny an application from a legal adult unless they suspect that said adult is being coerced. In January 2019 I finally received a reply, scheduling an appointment at the Halifax consulate for March 2019.
On the day of the appointment, I arrived a few minutes early and had to wait for the consulate to open (I think I was the first item on their schedule for that day). The building where the consulate is located is very nice and modern, full of business suites for law firms and the like. The consulate occupies its own floor accessible only by elevator, and when I got there, I had to buzz in using what looked like a doorbell camera from an apartment building. Once inside the consulate proper, there was only a single guard, who was quite friendly until I informed him that I was carrying an Epi-Pen because of my severe food allergy. He seemed worried about this as if it was some sort of threat and confiscated it, saying that I could have it back when I left. I asked him what would happen if I needed it, and he obfuscated for a few seconds before telling me to continue into the waiting area, never answering my question. The consulate itself is very small – a single room with about 20 chairs in the middle, three bank teller-style windows in one wall, and the guard’s desk and metal detector by the entrance. At this point the guard and I were the only people in the room.
I waited for probably 15 minutes before a clerk appeared in one of the windows and called my name. She took my documentation and I sat back down and waited for probably another 10 minutes before my name was called again. I went up to the next window and paid the $2,350 USD in cash, which the clerk seemed irritated by. She gave me a receipt and told me to wait again. While I was waiting a family came into the consulate for what I think was U.S. travel visas, based on snippets of conversation I accidentally overheard. After maybe 20 more minutes of waiting I was called to the third window, which had a chair set out in front. I sat down, and the woman behind the window introduced herself as the vice-consul. We had to speak through microphones that didn’t work very well and kept cutting out, and there was a slot at the bottom of the window for passing documents through.
The vice-consul started by asking me to confirm my identity and my intent to renounce my citizenship. I raised my right hand and swore to tell the truth, as directed. The vice-consul then began going through my documents and asked me about the circumstances of my birth. From this point forward I remember clearly what was said but I cannot recall exactly the order of events because the questioning became very intense and intimidating, and I went into autopilot mode. The consulate probably knows exactly how the conversation played out, however, due to the surveillance camera conveniently located right above the interview window.
I do remember that it began with her incredulity that I was trying to renounce at only 18 years old, because according to her, I didn’t have enough life experience to do so. She asked me why I chose to renounce at this time, and I said it was because I legally could and wanted to, and she seemed irritated by my lack of elaboration. Since I was still in high school, had not travelled extensively outside of North America, had not been to the U.S. much in the past few years, and had yet to vote in any election, she claimed that I clearly didn’t know enough about the world to make such a monumental decision. I told her that I planned to vote and travel later and just had not been able to do so yet because I was not old enough, but she wasn’t satisfied. She asked me to list everywhere I had ever lived, and what jobs my parents held in each location. When I told her that some of my parents’ jobs were with the U.S. government, she seemed very suspicious about it. She also made some strange comments about the fact that we moved quite often during my childhood, as if she suspected that we were involved in something shady.
Now, the law clearly states that I don’t have to give a reason, but she told me in no uncertain terms that a person as young as me must prove to her that I am of sound enough mind and have a good enough reason to renounce. This is blatantly untrue, and I knew that during the interview, but I felt very intimidated by the vice-consul and I had to appease her in order to get through the interview and not waste the massive amount of money I had just paid. She asked me about my career aspirations, and when I told her that I might go into medicine, she said that I should keep an open mind about medical school and residency in the States. When I told her I would rather stay in Canada for my education, she seemed bewildered and asked me if I had really thought about it, because if I had thought about it properly, I must be at least considering going to the U.S. I said I had considered it plenty, and I preferred Canada. She kept pressing me about it, asking me why I didn’t go to university in the States, or take a gap year and travel there. I said I didn’t want to. Every time I said I didn’t want to go to the U.S. her expression became more and more confused. She then said that I should keep my citizenship because if I ever decide to travel internationally, American diplomats and military can provide more protection if I get kidnapped abroad. She said that a maple leaf on my backpack can only get me so far, that nothing can protect me as well as a U.S. passport, and because of that I need to keep my citizenship for my own safety while travelling. I didn’t know quite how to respond to that, so I just said that I had made my decision and hoped she’d back off. She didn’t.
Sometime after that she began trying to construct a case that my parents were coercing me into renouncing. She started asking all sorts of leading questions – were my parents still citizens, did we discuss renunciation at home, did I go with them to their renunciation appointments, how long I had been thinking about renouncing, did they suggest that I do it, and did they drive me to my appointment that day. I answered that I did hear about it from them but that the decision to renounce was my own; and furthermore, since I can’t drive and am from out of town, I couldn’t have gotten there without being driven by my parents. She seemed very confused by my answers and muttered under her breath several times that she didn’t understand my reasoning.
The vice-consul also asked me about my Canadian citizenship. I naturalized when I was a kid, having moved to Canada at a young age. She asked me why I didn’t want to stay as a dual citizen, and I told her it was because I felt Canadian, not American, and I didn’t want to keep a nationality I didn’t identify with. She didn’t take that as an answer, so I said I thought it would be easier to just have one citizenship. She said that having American citizenship had no downsides, and used herself as an example – she explained that she had a very high security clearance and an important job in the U.S. foreign service and her dual Canadian/American citizenship didn’t cause any problems for her. I thought it was rather inappropriate for her to be talking about details of her job, especially her security clearance, in a renunciation interview, but I didn’t say anything about it. She clearly expected me to acquiesce and admit that she was right, but I just said that I wanted to get rid of my American citizenship and that I was determined to go through with it. She was visibly frustrated by my response, and said again that she didn’t understand my reasoning.
She also had a very low opinion of young people such as myself, which came out on multiple occasions during the interview. She made several comments about young people being impatient, not understanding the world, making uninformed decisions, et cetera. She said at one point that I was being naive, that young people are always so blasé about serious matters, and that I would surely regret this decision once I was older and wiser. I felt insulted by the constant references to my youth, and during the entire interview I felt I was being treated like a child.The interview went on for about half an hour of hard grilling before the vice-consul suddenly gave up. I think she was trying to wear me down and intimidate me into cancelling my renunciation, and after I refused to do so, she decided to drop it. After she asked me her last question, she audibly sighed and pushed the papers I would need to sign through the slot in the window. She asked me to read several documents and summarize them for her. I did so, signed both copies, and gave them back in exchange for the the document containing the oath of renunciation. I had expected to raise my hand, swear, or do something officially binding while reciting the oath, but she just asked me to read the oath out loud, which I did. I signed both copies of the oath and gave them back. Meanwhile, it was very clear that the family in the waiting area had heard everything that was said between the vice-consul and myself, and it was unexpectedly very embarrassing to have to defend my decision to renounce my citizenship from a high-ranking diplomat in front of people who were actively trying to get into the U.S.
The vice-consul went on to explain that Washington would respond in a few months with either a CLN or a letter of denial, and that I would have to be patient. She added another rude comment under her breath about people my age being impatient. She also said that young people who decided to do this often come to regret their decision after a couple months, and if I regret mine before receiving my CLN, I could write the consulate and try to get it stopped. She also gave me a temporary CLN to use if I had to travel abroad before the legitimate one arrived. She returned my documents to me and very brusquely asked me to leave. I reclaimed my Epi-Pen from the guard and left the consulate without incident. The appointment took around an hour and 15 minutes in total, about half of which constituted the interview. After I left, I was externally calm but internally very shaken, since I felt that my rights had been violated. The vice-consul abused her position of authority over me during the interview in order to intimidate me into keeping my citizenship, and I was very afraid that my application would be rejected. It felt like I was trying to a leave a cult.
My CLN arrived in April 2019, just over a month after my renunciation appointment. I was surprised that it arrived so quickly, but I was also very relieved that I had been approved after all. I was glad to have it over and done with. Forever.”
APRIL 10, 2019 SECOND-HAND SUMMARY ACCOUNT OF EXPERIENCE OF YOUNG PERSON ATTEMPTING TO RENOUNCE AT US CONSULATE IN CANADA:
“Anyone preparing to renounce their US citizenship needs to be aware of a situation affecting a young adult renunciant of which I have recently become aware.
This person attempted to renounce at a US Consulate in Canada and received an unpleasant surprise. Instead of the standard brief interview process, which typically involves being made aware of the consequences of renunciation and determination of voluntariness, this person was subjected an almost 30-minute grilling by the Vice Consul about how foolish their intention to renounce was, especially at their young age, accompanied by proselytizing about the virtues of American citizenship.
It was explicitly stated by this official that they had to know, in detail, why this person was renouncing and that they had to be fully convinced of the validity of their motives before the renunciation could be forwarded to Washington for approval, as if they were a minor under 18 instead of an adult.
The Vice Consul badgered the young person, asking again and again for an explanation, even though they had clearly said that they did not wish to make a statement about why they were renouncing, both in the paperwork and in person at the interview.
In particular, the Vice Consul insinuated that the young person was most likely being coerced by their parents because no young adult would have the life experience or understanding to take such a monumental action.
Also, they spent a good portion of this “lecture” extolling the virtues of maintaining US citizenship and even derided the young person for not considering attending university in the US. The Vice Consul called them “naive” and “blasé” and said that they were acting “rashly”, even though the person in question is very mature, intelligent, well-spoken, and firmly resolute in this decision and in their motivations.
The Vice Consul went on to say that it was extremely rare that an 18 year-old person would take this action and that “it didn’t make any sense.”
The Vice Consul also said there was no reason to renounce because there were no negative consequences to holding both citizenships.
She then implied that Canadian citizenship wasn’t as valuable because Canada couldn’t/wouldn’t help out like America could/would while travelling abroad (e.g., consular assistance, military rescue, etc.), even saying that the Canadian flag on the backpack would only get you so far but that travelling under the US passport gave you the most safety of all.
While the Vice Consul was technically polite and did not raise her voice, it appeared to the young renunciant that the official’s intent was to manipulate. In their opinion, the Vice Consul’s actions constituted a clear attempt to intimidate and to spread pro-American propaganda and to create doubt in their mind about whether they should renounce or whether they even had the right to renounce at this age (even though they are an adult). Accordingly, they are now afraid that the State Department will reject the renunciation and keep the USD$2350 due to the Vice Consul’s willingness to bully them in this way.
I don’t know if this is a new policy being implemented by the State Department or if it is a random occurrence happening to this one person but anyone planning to renounce should be prepared for an intense grilling about motives and unprofessional conduct by consular officials, especially if they are young adults.
This young person feels strongly that their human right to expatriate without interference, as guaranteed by the Expatriation Act of 1868, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was clearly infringed. Be aware and be prepared.”
@plaxy
No ,I don’t think there was any real threat of bank witholds, that might have brought real resistance , the threat was enough. The banks here were chasing their tails.
I believe the US objective was financial control of their citizens together with holding onto control of the world’s financial system. I think it was Jefferson who said you don’t need an army if you control the finances.
PS @plaxy
The point is that the legal challenges have been brought about by the people affected rather than by the banks. The threats to the banks have been ameliorated.
Happily, I don’t know enough about US politics to guess what the objective was. Though I note that it came in handy in the scoring room.
I do take the view, with some confidence, that it’s unlikely that expats were the intended target — for the same reason CBT is unenforceable: the US simply does not have taxing rights / withholding rights on non-US income received by or due to persons living outside the US.
@plaxy
The target…
Not the intended recipe but a bonus icing on the cake that Obama did not refuse when it was served.
Indeed, as I said above, they should have dreamed up a registration scheme or some such plan, for non-US-resident USCs who have no choice but to have foreign accounts and assets. Many would be only too glad to sign away their ability to make use of the toxic US tax system, rather than having to pay an enormous sum to lose US citizenship.
Didn’t happen though. Who is surprised?
Here goes devil’s advocate:
I’d interpret the Vice Consul’s intervention as it is described as appropriate. 18 is very young and US citizenship does open a world of opportunity.
Half of people divorce, people change political opinions and people move constantly abroad. Why pay $2350 at age 18 just to close a door you may want to go through some day? Who can say what the future holds? Who hasn’t undergone a major change of heart in life?
Besides, this isn’t like refusing to go to war in Vietnam. Dual citizenship with foreign residence isn’t that hard to hold especially when you are young and informed and can plan for living with it (avoiding certain situations…). I think you don’t even need to file if you have a very low or no income, which is often the case if you’re a student. Of course there are circumstances where renunciation is an immediate must, maybe there are complex financial matters involved, but few people are in that situation.
Therefore I too would warn a very young person about renunciation. Having been a young person with strong opinions I know that being firmly warned about consequences is sometimes useful. Maybe the Vice Consul was just doing their job well. Heck, at 52 I’m still on the fence. I’ve adapted to the stress and paperwork and send in sanitized data every year to FinCEN and the IRS. I figure maybe at 60, 70 or 80 I’ll want to move to a cabin in Montana or a condo in San Diego, or a motel in Florida or an island in Maine, whatever.
Was the Vice Consul irritating, patronizing, know-it-all, insufferable? Well, that 18 year old best be prepared to meet a lot more of those as life goes on, and they won’t all be at State.
@Fred
Yes, I agree, maybe it’s best for 18 yr olds to wait, see, but stay informed. It was right for them to question the decision but perhaps it was the tone of the Consul that was unexceptable.
About your retirement in a cabin in Montana… do you have 10 yrs of Social security to qualify for medicare, otherwise healthcare for retirees in the US could bankrupt you 🙂
@ Heidi
Healthcare was precisely why we knew we could not stay in the USA until old age (left in our 40’s). We had no health insurance there (couldn’t afford it). We actually lingered there too long because I should have been back in Canada sooner to help my parents with their rather rocky entrance into old age. If I had known then what I know now …
@Fred, $Heidi
If the posted account is a true representation of what actually occurred, then the VC violated both renunciation law and regulation. Under the law, no government official can interfere with a citizen’s right to expatriate themselves in any way, as long as the renunciant has reached the age of majority and is not acting under duress/coercion. The only questions that can be asked must revolve solely around understanding legal consequences of renunciation and determining absence of coercion. If the renunciant is 18 or older, then they are considered adults under the relevant laws and regulations and the VC can no more do this to them than they can do it to someone who is 78. The VC is legally required to keep their personal opinions to themselves, regardless of how they feel about the foolishness of the young ADULT’s actions. Either the young person is a full adult under the law or they are not, period.
@refugefromamerica
They are required to check that you are not acting under duress and a young person of 18 can perhaps be influenced by many things. I would imagine a few simple questions would suffice to check the person understood the full implications of their decision.
But I agree a 7th degree interrogation is no way acceptable.
@EmmBee
I was in the UK last week and watched a UK TV program called ‘a place in the sun’ in which people are shown houses that they may like to buy as a holiday home or for a more permanent move. There was an elderly couple from the UK whom I imagine had obtained some kind of visa to live in Florida to be close to to their daughter who lived there. They were not wealthy and there was discussion about the affordability of the properties and the low cost of living and all was hunky dory and their offer was accepted on a pretty basic home, but my only thought was
“how could they possibly get healthcare?”
@ Heidi
At one point we thought maybe we could bring my Canadian parents down to live with us but when we looked into getting health insurance for them it was never going to happen. There was a possibility of getting expensive coverage for 1 year but after that it was virtually impossible. (Pre-existing conditions are a real problem.) I watch HGTV shows where Americans move to other countries and they make it seem effortless but I notice none of them ever mentions US taxation. It’s the same with the vise versa move. Those shows never mention US healthcare costs.
I bet an 18-year-old trying to join the military wouldn’t have his motivation second-guessed by the recruiting officer.
Fred (B):
“Was the Vice Consul irritating, patronizing, know-it-all, insufferable? Well, that 18 year old best be prepared to meet a lot more of those as life goes on, and they won’t all be at State.”
Indeedy. Especially if said 18-year-old is female. 🙂
refugeefromamerica:
Does US law actually accord such rights to the renouncer?
The manual page says:
The consular officer in this case could with no risk to herself have declined to administer the Oath and sent the young person away for a “further period of reflection”. Instead, she asked a lot of intrusive questions, presumably so that she would be able to show that she had enquired thoroughly into the possibility of coercion or undue persuasion before administering the Oath (thus allowing a loss of citizenship which would not become irrevocable until the renouncer reached the age of 18 years 6 months).
In other words, the renouncer ultimately came away with the desired outcome.
If the CLN doesn’t get approved by Washington, then the renouncer will have grounds for complaint; but it almost certainly will be approved, given that the Consular Officer went ahead and administered the Oath.
@Heidi: you are quite right. I’d have to work at the local Starbucks. I could also keep my residence in Belgium and have travel insurance 🙂
@Plaxy: I guess!
Anyway, the last time I worked in the US 20 years ago I was struck by the importance of CYA. Maybe this consular official was fixated on not being faulted with signing off lightly on renunciations. And to continue being devil’s advocate, maybe they are also justifying the high fee. “Hey, look, we took time and human resources to make sure, in your best interest, that you knew what you were doing.” If it took 30 seconds, breezing thru, we’d surely be complaining about that, right 🙂
“ If it took 30 seconds, breezing thru, we’d surely be complaining about that, right ”
No doubt. 🙂
@FredB
Travel insurance
Its not so easy as you get older especially when the US is part of the itinary.
My 80yr old neighbour visits his daughter in Texas for a month each year, last year he said it was 4 times the cost of the flight, this year he has been refused insurance.
“Maybe the laws will change”. Ha.
Okay, we’ll play that game. If the laws can change, they can change to undo any renunciation, by request & refund the $2350 for being such global *rseholes.
Jane:
For context, could you quote a bit more of the comment you’re responding to? Which laws was the commenter referring to?
“If it took 30 secs breezing thru, we’d surely be complaing about that, right”
Wrong, the less time I spent in that paranoid fortress the better. I breathed a hugh sigh of relief to be out onto sane, Swiss soil.
@plaxy
I couldn’t see the reference to which Jane refered but I am sure it has been quoted here many times before and we all know the laws she is refering too:-)
Heidi –
Could you share your knowledge with me? 🙂
@plaxy
Don’t I always?:-)
?????
Why assert “we all know” if in fact you don’t or don’t want to say? I’m merely trying to understand the context.
Plaxy
This isn’t a court of law.
I understand Jane’s comment it is decipherable from the context of the discussion, but I didn’t quote it, so maybe she will explain her reference to you.